I was listening to traditional European folk music and it got me thinking about the topic. Did the masses mostly have exposure to folk music while only the upper class could attend classical music concerts? I'm mainly thinking of Central and Western Europe from the 16th to mid 19th century.

So, while doing some research into the ideological origins and precursors of 20th century fascism, I came across this book which seems to be rather infamous and controversial. I have only read second hand about its claims so far, including that Napoleon supposedly used primitive gas chambers in the form of ship holds and sulphur dioxide.

The quote, that Napoleon "[...] asked himself rationally the question how to eliminate, in as short a time as possible, and with a minimum of cost and personnel, a maximum of people described as scientifically inferior" appears in articles as well.

But in addition to it, there is a lot of contention and controversy, claiming there are dubious and only few sources, etc.

Now, this does seem plausible, it's not like revision of history can't happen, but it should bring with it good and new sources. But I also know that when the subject matter is a personality that is still important to the national myth of France, as well as colonial crimes, it's still also possible that some established historians aren't that willing to entertain the thought at all.

The book also seems to be old enough that any historians interested in it would have done some more study on it. So I'd love to hear if someone on here who is knowledgeable enough could assess what is to be made of these claims, and the connection drawn from Napoleon, Haiti, genocide and the study of industrial efficiency in murdering as many people as possible.

I know there are alot of posts on this sub explaining that shermans were great tanks, many of which I read and knew the points they make even before I read them, but why are they seen as bad?

​

Is it because of survivor's bias, or rather it's opposite, the corpse bias, where bad experiences make more of an impression that good ones? Is it because of the book "death traps"? If so, why did the writer see shermans as bad tanks? Or are there other reasons?

I worked with a few guys at uni to remap the battle of Gettysburg and I sorta came to the realization that his move may have won the battle.

I was criticized for thinking this and I kinda just want to know if the movement actually changed anything in the battle

I get that the modern latin alphabet is adapted from previous ones, but why would creators of primitive alphabets decide to order letters in some way rather than another? And why would they order them at all?

And what about alphabets not based upon phoenician?

Edit: I realized this post may be better suited for r/AskAnthropology, I've added the question there too

Basically I’m wondering how did English affect French (Culture, Language, etc) in regions like Normandy where the English were for hundreds of years, and how many English people moved to English France (or how many French moved to England)?

A friend of mine posited that South Vietnam was widely in favor of communism and one of the reasons that it wasn't implemented was because of the US involvement in the government before the conflict ever started. Also, that if they were allowed to vote, they would have voted to unite North and South Vietnam. I can't find any evidence that backs this up. Are there any sources to tell us how the south viewed communism?

Obviously there were more than one factors for why WW2 started but I am wondering how much Hitler was to blame and what other factors came into account.

My grandfather had always talked about how he was apart of the "Forgotten Convoy", or the "Lost Convoy" when he served in the Navy during WWII. I tried to google this and can not find any good resources of information on this. All I know is from what he would talk about, How they were forgotten by the US government, but survived on the shores of Russia thanks to the locals that would bring them food. I do not know his ships name. I was wondering if anyone had any information on this. Thank you!

Early self-loaders are rife with examples of problems in the field. A bit of dust or mud could cause the gun to jam or suffer a catastrophic failure. Better machining allowed modern rifles, like the ubiquitous AR and AK platforms, to perform in field conditions. Why did it take decades for gunsmiths to produce something like the American M1, or the AK47? What was the barrier that kept them making expensive and problem-prone self-loaders like the unreliable Cei-Rigotti or the too heavy Winchester '05? How did they overcome this barrier?

The complete opposition to divorce is one of the most notable differences between (many sects of) Christianity and other world religions. And in the Gospels, Jesus is pretty clear that he thinks the remarriage of divorced people is a form of adultery. Was this a surprising or radical thing for him to say, in the context of 1st-century Judaism or contemporary Hellenism? Or was he just voicing a slightly more explicit and steadfast version of what most of his listeners probably already agreed with?

Since the Bible generally doesn't describe angels (beyond "an angel said..."), describes them as looking like "young men", or in apocalyptic literature as a variety of strange beasts (six-winged, 3-headed creatures, wheels covered in eyes, etc).

Is there a link with Zorastrian or Greek depictions of the divine?

I'm a grad student writing grants for my research. I started thinking about who funded research before there were organisations like the NSF and NIH. I'm asking more on the European end, assuming that early American Colonies didn't really feature a science program (that I know of). So who funded all these endeavors? The King and Queen? Universities? Private investors? Was there a common way to get funds or did it just depend on who was doing the research and what it was on? Lets limit the time period to Europe between the 1500 and 1800s.

I recently watched Tudor week on the Great British Baking show and it got me wondering what royal cuisine would look like. I'm guessing that there would be a need to cook food for a large number of people that is high quality and at least somewhat varied. Before things like electric lights, not to mention all the other amenities that seems challenging.

So what would the physical kitchen look like, how large would would it be?

Also how would the personal work? Did it have a structure we would be familiar with, chefs, choux chefs and the rest? Would these folks be English or imported or trained abroad or what?

How varied and good would the food be? Sometimes I get the sense that what would be fit for a king at one point in time would be fairy regular today. If a modern food critic went back how might they rate the grub?

Thanks

[deleted]

No I’m not talking about the pickelhelm, I mean the M1916 Stalheh. The small horn like things on the sides of their helmets. What were they and what did they do?